The lede on the DRUDGEREPORT most of Monday showed a Catholic nun being patted
down at an airport security checkpoint, with the caption starkly declaring that
"THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON."

He's right.

Ten years after 9/11, Americans who fly are facing a Faustian choice between
subjecting themselves to a virtual (and potentially medically damaging) strip
search conducted in questionable machines run by federal employees or a psychologically
damaging pat-down of their bodies. Osama bin Ladin must be giggling himself
silly this week.

But what should we expect in a society that requires adults to wear bicycle
helmets while pedaling in the park, provides disclaimers of liability on TV
advertisements, or prints warnings on fast-food coffee cups? The name of the
game is zero risk. Not risk mitigation, or accepting responsibility for one's
actions, but risk aversion. It's a failure to acknowledge that we can't protect
against everything bad that can happen to us, so we must protect against everything
we think might -- might -- be harmful at some point.

It's living in fear.

TSA has established itself as the lead federal agency charged with perpetuating
this risk-averse culture at airports around the country. The proof is evident
over the past ten years: Because of the Shoebomber, we have to remove our shoes.
Thanks to the Christmas Crotchbomber, we are subjected to invasive scanning
or government-mandated molestation. Because there's a potential for explosives
in liquid or gel form, we've got the "Three Ounces in A Baggie" rule.
Wearing a sweater or bulky fleece hoodie? Take it off (along with your shoes
and belt) so it can be examined. Or frisking Granny, or asking toddlers to drink
from their Sippy-cups to make sure it's really Mommy's milk inside. And let's
not forget the thankfully defunct prohibitions on knitting needles, insulin
syringes, matches, lighters, or standing during the last 30 minutes of flights
to Washington, DC.

All in the name of protecting the homeland.

Given this latest round of homeland hysteria, I must ask again -- what happens
after the next 'new' attempt to smuggle something onto a plane? Actually, we
know the answer: another item will go on the Prohibited Items List and additional
screenings of passengers will be conducted, followed by more patronising security-speak
from our Department of Homeland Insecurity asking law abiding folks to give
up more of their privacy and personal "space" in the interest of Homeland
(er, "State") Security. Big Brother, meet Big Sister. With all her
homeland security lobbyists along for the ride.

Where does it end?

Due to this nationalised risk aversion and a docile public, we're now living
in a country that subordinates law abiding travelers to quasi-law-enforcement
employees of a government agency empowered to make up the rules as it goes along
and arrest/fine those who question, challenge, or refuse to comply with their
demands while impeding their travel within this great country. What does all
of this do to our nation? Our way of life? Our way of thinking as citizens?

Perhaps this is intentional, and we're being conditioned to accept the actions
of TSA and embrace a zero-risk mentality on our society. What else can explain
the statement made earlier today by TSA Director John Pistole that citizens
who protest what they see as government transgressions into their privacy are
being "irresponsible"? Calling us irresponsible when protesting this
latest round of TSA actions is no different than our being labelled unpatriotic
when protesting or questioning some of the provisions in the controversial USA
PATRIOT Act. Same stuff, different Administration.

The American public needs to recognise the nature of the terror threat and
accept a certain level of risk in their lives and travels instead of kowtowing
to every reactive security 'enhancement' proclaimed by TSA as necessary to protect
the country. In terms of airport security, we are the laughing stock of the
industrialised world, and an embarrassment to knowledgeable security professionals.

The tragedy of 9/11 wasn't the attacks of that day, but what has happened to
America in the years since.

Which begs the question: who should we be afraid of, really -- "them"
or "us?"

Richard Forno is a security researcher in the Washington, DC area.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content,
and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will
not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements
contained in this article.